The decision altered Washington almost overnight. It triggered an explosion in new super PACs—independent groups not directly affiliated with any campaign that are able to raise and spend as much as they want on any given campaign.

People hold signs during a gathering on the anniversary of the Citizens United decision in Montpelier, Vt. (AP/Toby Talbot)

FewSupreme Courtdecisions have changed American politics as drastically as 2010’sCitizens United, which unleashed a torrent of cash into the political system. Fewer still prompted such a negative public reaction: A recent poll conducted by Bloomberg found that an overwhelming majority of Americans aren’t happy with the results.

The pollsurveyed 1,001 U.S. adultsover the age of 18. It found 78 percent of respondents feel the Supreme Court’s decision that “corporations and unions may spend unlimited amount on political causes” should be overturned, while only 17 percent approved of the court’s actions. Four percent were undecided.

Bloomberg Politics noted that negative sentiment towardCitizens Unitedwas strong on both sides of the aisle. Eighty percent of Republicans opposed the ruling, as did 83 percent of Democrats.

Pollsters also asked about a handful of other Supreme Court rulings; however,Citizens Unitedwas the only decision a majority of respondents said should be overturned. Rulings upholding the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate, legalizing same-sex marriage, and granting women the Constitutional right to have an abortion all had significantly more support than they did opposition.

Decided in early 2010,Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissioncentered around a movie. A conservative lobbying group called Citizens United produced a film attacking Hillary Clintonand wanted to show ads of it on TV during the 2008 presidential campaign. Campaign finance rules passed in 2002 prohibited that from happening and the group sued. The case made its way up to the Supreme Court, where its five conservative justices issued a ruling equating political donations to First Amendment-protected free speech granting it sweeping protections.

The decision altered Washington almost overnight. It triggered an explosion in new super PACs—independent groups not directly affiliated with any campaign that are able to raise and spend as much as they want on any given campaign.

Within a few short years, super PACs have arguably become the single most important actors in American politics, and their growth shows no signs of slowing. According to a report by the Center For Responsive Politics, outside political organizations have spent over $25 million so far in the 2016 election cycle. That’s a 34 percent increase over this same point in the 2014 cycle and a five-fold jump above the 2012 election.

Not only are super PACs raising bigger bucks than ever before, but they’re also building themselves into the heart of campaigns. This is despite language in the court’s ruling to block direct coordination between outside groups—which are allowed to raise unlimited funds—and the campaigns themselves, which still have to abide by fundraising limits.

Right To Rise, the super PAC backing former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, has raised over $100 millionand is taking over many of the responsibilities traditionally handled by campaigns themselves. Bush has headlined numerous Right To Rise fundraisers and, under the Federal Election Commissions interpretation of theCitizens United, that does not meet the government’s standard for direct coordination.

The two leading Democratic presidential candidates, Clinton and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, have both come out againstCitizens United,arguing that it should be overturned and supporting a constitutional amendment to accomplish that.

Another Democratic candidate, Harvard professor Lawrence Lessig, has made that fighting the effects ofCitizens Unitedthe centerpiece of his campaign. Lessig has pledged that, if elected, he would enact a massive reform to get big money out of politics and then immediately resign the presidency.

Stories published in our Daily Digests section are chosen based on the interest of our readers. They are
republished from a number of sources, and are not produced by MintPress News. The views expressed in
these
articles are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect MintPress News editorial policy.

The recent devastating car bombing in Mogadishu has been blamed by Somali officials on the terrorist group al-Shabab. But the violence (and famine) that have beset Somalia have deeper roots — decades of imperialism and intervention, and use of Somalia as a staging grounds for the “war on terror.”

Buried among statistics on gun profits and lobbying efforts is the terrifying reality of just how unique America’s gun obsession and associated violence are. And the equally terrifying plan by the NRA to “normalize” gun possession in nearly every nook and cranny of American life.

U.S. campaigns for regime change characteristically focus on the “madness” of the “dictators” to be toppled. In the case of North Korea, the narrative is spiced by the country’s developing nuclear capabilities — which North Korea views as its main line of defense against . . . regime change.

Aung Su Kyi, the leader of Myanmar, has been accused of “legitimizing genocide” against the country’s Rohingya Muslims, despite being a Nobel Prize laureate. Her country’s military has massacred thousands of Rohingya, leading some to call for Kyi’s Nobel Prize to be revoked.